Better Luc next time
Emissions from the use of biofuels are not zero, but they are low. Biodiesel (specifically the HVO100 version) reduces CO2 emissions by 80–90%, which are numbers many can appreciate. No ‘new’ diesel needs to be extracted from the ground, and so this avoids additional increases in CO2.
In line with these promising figures, there’s also the ease of use (since you can refuel directly), the fact that it offers cleaner combustion, and that it is becoming increasingly accessible.
So is the blog done after 80 words?
Not yet.
ILUC
If we also consider the price tag, we have to account for around 10–20% higher costs, although there are plenty of moments when this margin is relatively small. The cost and the broader question—who pays for it?—I’ll leave aside for now.
In an earlier blog (Supply Claim Management), I ended with the quote, “We need to go deeper.” Biofuel (in this case: HVO) does have a sharp edge. Or did. Still, this topic again shows that sustainability can’t be approached one-dimensionally. During the emergence of the first generation of biodiesel, the so-called ‘food versus fuel’ debate arose. That first generation was largely produced from food crops such as palm oil. Indeed, it led to a high degree of food competition and had a major impact on land use. Real consequences like deforestation were not far-fetched.
The controversy is clearly visible in the image below.
The trade-offs of growing HVO demand
The correct term here is: ILUC, or ‘Indirect Land Use Change’.
As described nicely on Wikipedia: The unintended consequence of releasing more carbon emissions due to global changes in land use, caused by the expansion of agricultural land for the production of ethanol or biodiesel in response to rising global demand for biofuels. Fortunately, the focus with the second and current generation of biodiesel has shifted to waste streams, such as used cooking oil, animal fats, or fish oil.
However—without wishing to sound negative—the controversy still looms. No matter how often we speak of “unintended consequences,” it remains important to broaden our perspective and align our actions accordingly. Especially as more companies begin using HVO and demand potentially exceeds supply:
• Producers may revert to using feedstocks like palm oil;
• Competition may arise with existing buyers (e.g. for animal feed);
• Feedstocks may be imported from regions like Asia simply to meet demand.
As is often the case, the use of certified feedstocks (such as via ISCC or even RSB certification) provides more transparency and assurance about origin, for example. A more regional origin is naturally preferred.
At Logicall, we continue to go deeper, explore the edges, and reflect on how trustworthy something feels—and truly is. Biodiesel is not the answer, but it is a step forward.
It’s a bit of a cliché, but if we can avoid unnecessary transport altogether, that’s always better (see the Ladder and its top step: prevention).
Evert Stijkel – Head of ESG